Is Earning $50 LESS per month a Big deal to YOU?

[waveycrockett]

So with the fiscal cliff doomsday talk and how it impacts an average american I was wondering how big of a deal this really is. The figures from CNN

That's because the government had temporarily lowered the payroll tax rate in 2011 to 4.2% from 6.2%, in an effort to keep more cash in the pockets of Americans and provide a boost to the economy. The tax cut, which applies on the first $113,700 in annual earnings, is expiring in December.
Come 2013, most of the country's 160 million workers will see smaller paychecks. No one is expecting the payroll tax cut to be extended, even as lawmakers in Washington meet for budget talks to avoid the fiscal cliff.
Monthly paychecks will have $50 less for those earning $30,000 annually, and will shave off $189.50 for those with incomes totaling $113,700.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/31/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c1

Everyones situation is SOO different. From my perspective I would be taking roughly a ~$50 hit per month to which I say... No problem. Obviously depending on your situation these tax hikes can make or break you but for me personally I'm OK with contributing $50 per month MORE in order to pay down the debt here.

I know alot of people are throwing around these DOOMSDAY phrases in regards to the "cliff". How much is this going to affect YOUR wallet and is it a big deal? Should I be more paranoid about this like the media is making this out to be?

[behindmydesk]

I make more than that, and yes 50 bucks is a big deal. And if you live week to week 50 bucks is a huge huge deal. It's easily a weeks groceries.

Same arguments one side gets when they want to cut welfare or food stamps by what some think is a small amount.

[waveycrockett]

I make more than that, and yes 50 bucks is a big deal. And if you live week to week 50 bucks is a huge huge deal. It's easily a weeks groceries.

Same arguments one side gets when they want to cut welfare or food stamps by what some think is a small amount.

Very true and obviously there is validity and I actually agree more with you on this but with this national debt crisis conversation and talk of becoming the next "Greece" I feel like it is my duty. But obviously it would also be great not to pay it.

[bootleg42]

Very true and obviously there is validity and I actually agree more with you on this but with this national debt crisis conversation and talk of becoming the next "Greece" I feel like it is my duty. But obviously it would also be great not to pay it.

But the U.S. is no where near that. The U.S. is no where near being like Greece because we can print our own money while Greece can't.

There is no debt crisis. This is just complete B.S. that the 1% push to scare the general population into cutting social programs and prevent meaningful economic change.

The 10 year rate on bonds is REALLY LOW. This means that markets (you know, the filthy rich) believe that there is no debt crisis. Plus we can hold our own debt. We have so many instruments that Greece does not. Don't allow the corporate media to trick you into believing things that are not true.

[cabernetluver]

I make more than that, and yes 50 bucks is a big deal. And if you live week to week 50 bucks is a huge huge deal. It's easily a weeks groceries.

Same arguments one side gets when they want to cut welfare or food stamps by what some think is a small amount.

First, the reduction in the payroll tax was meant to be a temporary reduction to stimulate the economy. So, to me, this discussion is just a recognition of what I knew was going to happen when the temporary cut was made. I was for the temporary cut, and I am for the ending of the temporary cut.

As far as $50 a month being a big deal, not in the sense that it is going to effect my life in any way. I will continue to pay my debts, save, invest, and buy luxuries.

It is a false analysis to equate a monthly decrease in net pay to a weekly expense. This increase is equal to a $10/$500 earned. It just is not that much.

Now, if your question is do I hold $50 a month as meaningless, than the answer is no. It is not meaningless, but, the question placed was about it being a BIG deal.

BTW BMD, I am enjoying this wonderful Johnnie Walker Blue. I love the holidays!

[Steel Curtain]

Yes, it is a big deal. The problem is the government spends too much money. Taxing the rich won't affect me, but I doubt it will work. Going back to a free market economy while cutting spending is the best option to reduce the deficit. Going over the cliff will be detrimental to the economy, and if a deal is not reached today they better get one done with the new congress in January. I do genuinely believe Obama wants to compromise, but I don't support his position. Hopefully we can still get a deal done.

[ccugrad1]

Yes, $50.00 a month is a big deal. Equate that over the year, you are talking $600.00 per year. That pays a nice amount of bills. I think the money should come out of Obama and Congress' personal funds. The American people didn't make this mess; why should we have to be the ones to pay for it? The average American doesn't have any more to give.

[Pacerlive]

Yes, it is a big deal. The problem is the government spends too much money. Taxing the rich won't affect me, but I doubt it will work. Going back to a free market economy while cutting spending is the best option to reduce the deficit. Going over the cliff will be detrimental to the economy, and if a deal is not reached today they better get one done with the new congress in January. I do genuinely believe Obama wants to compromise, but I don't support his position. Hopefully we can still get a deal done.

I am always confused by this assumption. The US is a free market economy but the rest of world is not. We can not just assume that we can afford to play by our rules while the the rest of the world can play by the other set of rules. Its a false assumption that we can afford to live in Global economy that we live in and expect cheap oil and recerational goods. We want cheap cable and cell phone services yet we pay more on average for this than most EU countries.

[subroc]

...Obviously depending on your situation these tax hikes can make or break you but for me personally I'm OK with contributing $50 per month MORE in order to pay down the debt here...

The questions have to be: Are they really going to pay the debt down? You say that as if you are sure your $50. is going to debt reduction when in reality, it could be to support increased spending. And: Do we as a nation really need to spend all the money we spend on all the things we spend it on?

[Pacerlive]

The questions have to be: Are they really going to pay the debt down? You say that as if you are sure your $50. is going to debt reduction when in reality, it could be to support increased spending. And: Do we as a nation really need to spend all the money we spend on all the things we spend it on?

Honestly I expect that 50 bucks to go towards health care. Its the biggest cost and I understand that having so many illegals for cheap labor and a spiraling baby boomer population being the biggest budget concern. My grandmother and the McDonalds employee need it and unless we get on top of American health concerns we will be in dept to the hospitals one way or the other.

[GoCrew5]

It's not really just $50 per month. Think about how that could affect people's spending and then businesses lose profits, and then they lay people off etc. It's a trickle down affect that could send this country back to recession.

It's a huge deal.

Also, taxing the rich isn't going to do a damn thing. This country needs to cut the stupid spending out. The country will be 20 T in debt by 2014 I think it was which is ridiculous.

This is also why republicans are so against Obamas deal because it does absolutely nothing in terms of cutting spending. Then Obama has the nerve to hold a PC blaming republicans again and basically saying he'll be requesting rich to pay more in taxes later down the road to help with revenue again. This is also part of the reason why the house won't vote on this until tomorrow at the earliest, because it upset a lot of republicans.

Why should they agree to this deal, and then be forced/asked to pay more in taxes a few months down the road? Obama should have just shut his mouth, plus all the joking/laughing during the PC made him look like a phony considering his VP is the one doing the negotiating since he doesn't know how to get a deal done and compromise.

[bootleg42]

It's not really just $50 per month. Think about how that could affect people's spending and then businesses lose profits, and then they lay people off etc. It's a trickle down affect that could send this country back to recession.

It's a huge deal.

Also, taxing the rich isn't going to do a damn thing. This country needs to cut the stupid spending out. The country will be 20 T in debt by 2014 I think it was which is ridiculous.

This is also why republicans are so against Obamas deal because it does absolutely nothing in terms of cutting spending. Then Obama has the nerve to hold a PC blaming republicans again and basically saying he'll be requesting rich to pay more in taxes later down the road to help with revenue again. This is also part of the reason why the house won't vote on this until tomorrow at the earliest, because it upset a lot of republicans.

Why should they agree to this deal, and then be forced/asked to pay more in taxes a few months down the road? Obama should have just shut his mouth, plus all the joking/laughing during the PC made him look like a phony considering his VP is the one doing the negotiating since he doesn't know how to get a deal done and compromise.

That amount of debt is SO little that it's laughable, and NOT a problem what so ever. Take a look at 10 year bond rates. It's very low. That means that the filthy rich do not believe that there is a debt problem, because they're putting their money in 10-year U.S. bonds, and accepting a lower rate of return in exchange for security (meaning they believe that 10 years from now, the U.S. will be in no trouble, and will still be rich enough to pay the value of those bonds).

The whole media blitz about the debt is just propaganda that aims to fool the general population into accepting cuts to social spending. The general population is against cutting social spending, so the 1% have to try to scare the population into allowing such cuts.

The debt is NOT a problem, and social spending need NOT be cut.

[GoCrew5]

Gonna be 20 T in debt soon yet spending and being in debt is not a problem. Really?

[FOBolous]

Gonna be 20 T in debt soon yet spending and being in debt is not a problem. Really?

so...in your opinion....at what dollar amount will our debt hit the tipping point?

[GoCrew5]

so...in your opinion....at what dollar amount will our debt hit the tipping point?

I don't have an answer for that but if we keep spending like we do it isn't going to be good in the future